JUDGMENT 1. - I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was holding agricultural land as a Khatedar tenant and as he failed to file a return under section 10 of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 thereinafter to be referred as "the Act"), notice under section 11(1) of the Act was served upon him. On receiving the aforesaid notice, the petitioner filed a return and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sri Ganganagar held that out of 48 bighas and 14 biswas of land, the petitioner had sold 24 bighas and 14 biswas land to two persons. Navratanmal and Chainroop on February 22, 1972 and now he had only 24 bighas of land left to him. The Sub-Divisional Officer held that the aforesaid sale transactions were of bona fide nature and dropped the proceedings under the Act, by his order dated December 17, 1974. 3. The State preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer before the Additional Collector, Sri Ganganagar and the real facts relating to the aforesaid sales made by the petitioner were disclosed namely, that the alleged sales of 24 bighas and 14 biswas land were effected by the petitioner to his real brothers, Navratarmal and Chainroop, by sale deeds dated March 22, 1972. The Collector held that the aforesaid sales by the petitioner to his real brothers at such time could not be considered as bona fide transactions and, therefore, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was set aside and he was directed to take further proceedings in the matter under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner preferred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board by its order dated May 14, 1976 took the view that the proceedings were dropped by the Sub-Divisional Officer under section 12(l) of the Act and no appeal lay to the Collector therefrom. It was, however, held by the Board that the Sub Divisional Officer was competent to take proceedings under section 23A of the Act or the State Government could take action under section 15(1) of the Act. The Board also directed that, for the purpose of taking proceedings under section 23A of the Act, limitation shall begin to run from the date of the order of the Board, by which the matter was finally adjudicated. 4. The Board also directed that, for the purpose of taking proceedings under section 23A of the Act, limitation shall begin to run from the date of the order of the Board, by which the matter was finally adjudicated. 4. The State there upon moved a review application under section 23A of the Act before the Sub-Divisional Officer, of which due notice was given to the petitioner. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection that the review application was barred by limitation which was repelled by the sub-Divisional Officer on the ground that limitation started running from the date of the order passed by the Board of Revenue. The Sub-Divisional Officer passed an order reopenings the proceedings u/s 23A & has started an inquiry, giving the petitioner an opportunity of producing his evidence. It is against this order of the Assistant Collector Ceilings. Sri Ganganagar dated January 7, 1977 that the present petition has been filed in this Court. 5. In the first place it may be observed that the impugned order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Assistant Collector) is merely an inter locutory order and the inquiry under section 12 of the Act has still to take place. In the second place, I do of find any fault with the order passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer on the question of limitation. The argument of learned counsel is that the Sub-Divisional Officer no doubt had jurisdiction under section 23 A of the Act to review his earlier order pasted tinder section 12(1) of the Act, but learned counsel submits that it could have been done only within a period of six months of the order dropping the proceedings under section 12(1) of the Act or at the most within six months from the commencement of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975. According to the learned counsel, the Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to review his earlier order passed u/s 12 (1) after the expiry of six months thereof. It may be pointed out in this connection that the Sub-Divisional Officer's order u/s 12 (1) was set aside by the order of the Addl. Collector dated October 4, 1975 and it was no longer in existence till the Board of Revenue in second appeal held that the Additional Collector had no power to entertain the appeal against an order passed under section 12(l) of the Act. Collector dated October 4, 1975 and it was no longer in existence till the Board of Revenue in second appeal held that the Additional Collector had no power to entertain the appeal against an order passed under section 12(l) of the Act. This order was passed by the Board of Revenue on May 14, 1976 and as it was the final adjudication of the matter relating to the dropping of proceedings under section 12(1) of the Act, it is proper that the limitation of six months, fur purposes of review under section 23A of the Act, should be considered to have started to run from the date of the order of the Board of Revenue. Moreover, the Board of Revenue itself held in its appellate order on dated May 14, 1976 that the limitation of six months provided in section 23A shall run from the date of its order. The petitioner himself filed the appeal before the Board and he has not challenged the order of the Board of Revenue in the present proceedings and as such the decision of the Board of Revenue obtained on his own appeal is binding on the petitioner in this respect as well. I do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on the ground that the review was barred by limitation. The Sub Divisional Officer could not have reviewed the order passed by him earlier, until the matter remained pending before the Board of Revenue, on the appeal filed by the petitioner himself and it was only after May 14, 1976 that the Sub-Divisional Officer could exercise the powers tinder section 23A of the Act. Moreover this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would not set aside the order passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer on review, as it would have the effect of restoring the earlier order passed by him on December 17, 1974 which is per se unjustified and illegal. 6. Another submission made by learned counsel was that the Sub-Divisional Officer had not given any reason for reviewing his earlier order and the decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Bhagat Raj v. Union of India, ( AIR 1967 SC 1606 ) has been relied upon in this context. 6. Another submission made by learned counsel was that the Sub-Divisional Officer had not given any reason for reviewing his earlier order and the decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Bhagat Raj v. Union of India, ( AIR 1967 SC 1606 ) has been relied upon in this context. In Bhagat Raja's case their Lordships of the Supreme Court were considering the validity of the final order passed by the Central Government upon review under the provisions of the Mires and Mineral; (Regulation and Development) Act. In the present case, the facts which have led the Sub-Divisional Officer to reopen the matter are absolutely clear and those facts appear from the order of the Additional Collector namely, that that sales were effected by the petitioner in respect of 24 bighas and 14 bighas was of lard in favour of his real brothers Navratan Mal and Chainroop in February 1972 and that apparently such transactions were not bona fide unless proved otherwise. At the time when the earlier order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 17th December, 1974 it does not appear that the petitioner had disclosed the true facts namely, that the aforesaid sales of agricultural land were made by him in favour of his real brothers and on coming to know the real facts it was proper for the Sub- Divisional Officer to reopen the matter and make an inquiry into, the question as to whether the aforesaid sales were bona fide transactions. In my view, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is just and proper in the circumstances of the case and if an inquiry is sought to be made about the bona fide nature of the sale transactions effected by the petitioner in favour of his real brothers, relating to substantial areas of agricultural land, there is no reason for this Court to interfere with such an order in its extraordinary jurisdiction. 7. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.Writ dismissed. *******